Watchman Magazine

(A Departure from the Divine Hermeneutics)

While the old Bible hermeneutics acknowledges that God communicated his will to man through explicit commands, approved examples and necessary implications, a new hermeneutics makes light of all three by establishing an imaginary distinction in scripture between gospel and doctrine.

Essentially, the gospel/doctrine distinction has historically held that the gospel consists of a very limited set of facts about Jesus which are preached to the lost and which they can believe to the saving of their souls. Doctrine, on the other hand, is taught those already saved by the gospel. It is the product of the epistles, which is then filtered down to modern men through cultural and theological biases, creating an individually held standard that must not be imposed upon those of a conflicting mindset. The gospel is never preached to the saved and doctrine is never taught the lost when this distinction is obeyed.

• Continue reading

(A Departure from the Divine Hermeneutics)

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

It is no small task to define Modernism, even though the movement and philosophy has been around for some time. Various descriptions and definitions can be found in the abundance of sources on the subject. The problem is that modernistic thought has manifested itself in so many different contexts; therefore, it is hard to give one encompassing definition. Yet, we must try to identify the key facets of modernism so that we can identify it when it does manifest itself.

• Continue reading

Binding Where God Has Not
(A Departure from the Divine Hermeneutics)

Proper hermeneutics demands respect for the authority of the word of God. Legalism, on the other hand, is a departure from the divine hermeneutics that really doesn’t respect the authority of the word.

Not all who use the term legalism understand what it is. Neither is everyone who is charged with being a legalist guilty. It is true, however, that legalism is real and alive. It was a problem in the first century and is still a problem today.

What is Legalism?

Many times when we contend for a "thus saith the Lord", we are charged with being legalists. So, let’s first clarify what legalism is not:

• Continue reading

The primary difference between the Christian Church and the church of Christ that resulted in the division that remains to this day had little to do with the issues of the Missionary Society and the musical instrument. Though those issues were the lightning rod that effected the division, the real issue was the difference in view toward Bible authority and the silence of the scriptures. The same is true in the case of the institutional apostasy of the 20^th Century. Identical attitudinal differences remain. These differences are highlighted by a very simple question asked by someone or some group wanting to justify some religious practice. The question goes something like this, "Where does the Bible say I cannot do it?" Such an inquisitor has usually already decided their course of action. They just want to have God’s word behind them if at all possible. Legitimate biblical support is not always necessary if they can frame an authority search by appealing to negative authority, what the Bible does not say. Generally, however, the Bible does not say you cannot do whatever you might think you want to do. The problem is that the one seeking negative authority is asking the wrong question. We ought to be asking, "Where does it say in the Bible that I can?"

• Continue reading

The Greek word (sumphero) translated "expedient" (KJV) is defined as: "to bring together…bear together…to help, be profitable, be expedient" (Thayer); "to bring together…advantage, profitable, expedient (not merely ‘convenient’)…" (Vine).  Sumphero is used by the Lord.  He said,

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable [sumphero] for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable [sumphero] for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Matthew 5:29, 30).

Thus, "expedient" has an inherent meaning of "profitable," helpful, beneficial.  It is strange then, that "expedients" in the church have had such devastating effects.   Many practices introduced and organizations formed based on expediency have caused a number of divisions, great heartache and bitterness.  Expediency was used as the reason to kill Christ (John 11:50).  This shows the danger in justifying our action because it is "expedient."  Hence, we need a proper understanding of Bible expediency.

• Continue reading

Once we understand that all authority resides in Christ, and all we do must first be authorized by the Lord, then, we are ready to pursue the important question of "how" to connect the authoritative will of the Lord in Heaven to our specific beliefs and practices here on earth.  We are at a critical point in our walk with the Lord.  We no longer focus merely on our free will to believe, but seek to establish God’s authority for what we are to believe.  Unlike many who act first, no doubt intending to do it unto the Lord, we understand we must first have the Lord’s approval before we proceed to act (Colossians 3:17).  It is not a matter of merely doing something and saying, "I am doing this in the name of the Lord", but it is doing that which has "the name of the Lord" or his authoritative approval behind it (cf. Acts 4:7, 19:13-16).  We know whatever the Lord approves of, it will be found where He has revealed His mind concerning the matter: His word (1 Corinthians 2:10-13).  How then do we use God’s word in a way pleasing unto Him in order to establish His authority in all that we believe, say and do?

• Continue reading

It is interesting to study and gain insight into people’s views of the Scriptures. Some see the authority principle clearly while others do not see it at all. From the beginning, God’s relationship with man centered around a loving and all knowing God relating from a position of power to His creation, man. “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Genesis 1:26-28).  God said what He intended to do and then did it. Though He said, “let Us,” He sought permission from no other power. He spoke and things were created. It all existed and came into being from nothing. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). This is the ultimate power.

• Continue reading

Webster’s defines hermeneutics as:

“The study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)”

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

In his introductory comments in his book on the subject, Hermeneutics, Professor D.R. Dungan said:

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation.  It is derived from the Greek Hermes, the messenger of the gods and the interpreter of Jupiter.  Every Hermeneus was, therefore, an interpreter, as he was supposed to inherit some of the mystic qualities of this god of philology, this patron of eloquence.  Sacred hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures.  Exegesis (from ex, out, and egeisthas, to guide or lead), means to lead out.  It is the application of the principles of hermeneutics in bringing out the meaning of any writing which might otherwise be difficult to understand.

(Hermeneutics, page 1)

In this issue of Watchman Magazine, we intend both to examine the Divine Hermeneutics, and to warn of some present departures from that hermeneutics.  When we use the term Divine Hermeneutics, we refer to the “methodological principles of interpretation” which are established by God.  In other words, the principles established in this series of articles are divine mandates.  They are not “man-made” principles as is commonly contended by some.

• Continue reading

The King James version of the Bible is a wonderful translation of the words of God into our native tongue.  As a translation, it is limited in that it represents the scholarship of mere men who have attempted to take the words of God from the original languages (Hebrew in the Old Testament, Greek in the New Testament), and establish their meaning accurately in the English language.  The effort was laudable, and well executed, giving English readers almost 400 years ago a reliable translation of God’s Word into an important and influential language.  It must be understood, however, that it is merely a translation, and that final arguments concerning meaning and usage of the words used by the Old and New Testament writers must be settled by a study of the original tongues of inspiration.

It can be said that no other translation of the Bible has had a greater influence upon literature than the King James version.  The translators were careful to respect the plenary and verbal inspiration of the original autographs, and yet managed a work that is almost poetic in its reading.  Though the English language has changed in the ensuing 400 years, the Bible remains usable and desirable to many believers.

• Continue reading

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore…” (Ephesians 6:10-14).

This admonition from the beloved apostle Paul should not be taken lightly.  He knew, because the Holy Spirit had told him “expressly” (pointedly, specifically) that some would “depart from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1).  He also told the Ephesians that some would be “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (4:14).  This warning by our brother Paul is not for his generation only, but will be as true for us as it was for them.  “Winds of doctrine” will blow across the brotherhood and we must “take a stand” or be swept away with them.  While there are those who are content to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the strange doctrines that are blowing in our day, those who pay attention to the word of God realize that winds are blowing as much today as they were in apostolic times.

• Continue reading

Examining Romans 7:7-25

To say that this passage has been the occasion for much debate is an understatement. The fact that it is a difficult passage, regardless of the interpretation defended, is a truth to which all serious students would readily agree. In this brief study, we cannot raise all of the questions posed about this text, much less take the space required to reason towards answering all of those questions. We will, however, try to lay a foundation needed to properly understand the main points. For a detailed study, Whiteside’s commentary gives an excellent examination of this text.

The apostle Paul began the epistle to the Romans by affirming that the Gospel is God’s power to save those who respond in faith to that message. He then shows that all are in need of that salvation because all have sinned beginning with the Gentiles and then concentrating on the Jews (Romans 1:18 – 2:20). The next two chapters emphasize the themes of faith and grace as they relate to the justification of the sinner through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This point is also made with special emphasis to the Jews. Up to that point in the book, the writer stresses the need for, and nature of God’s action in salvation.

• Continue reading

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19).  In this first Bible reference to “the church” Jesus promises to build it on the foundation of His deity. Having made a construction reference in regard to the church, he completes the figure by promising to turn over the keys to those who would live in that church. Interestingly enough, in verse 19, He does not call it a church again, but rather He uses a synonym for it and calls it “the kingdom of heaven.”  They are one and the same.

The keys to be used in entering the kingdom, or church, would also involve inherently that which fits in the figure of a kingdom, that of rule, or authority. The possessor of the keys would have power to bind and loose. That is a function of law, to restrict behavior or to allow behavior — binding and loosing — restricting, allowing. Law permits or prohibits behavior. Such is the basic premise of law. Those that want to contend that the kingdom and church are not the same neither understand law, construction, or grammar, much less the scriptures. Why would the Lord promise to build His church and then promise the keys to something else? When builders complete their construction, they turn over the keys to those who will use that which is built. Jesus promised to build His church and then promised to turn over the keys to that church to those who would use it first, the apostles. Peter opened the door of the kingdom, church, to jews first at Pentecost and then to Gentiles in Caesarea when he preached to Cornelius and his household. The same thing happened on both occasions. The keys were used, the door of opportunity was opened, and penitent, faithful believers went through the door through baptism into Christ. Acts 2:47 affirms that those entering the door were added to the church.

• Continue reading

The Mennonites are a sect that still exists in countries around the world.  We would like to focus our attention in this article on those who moved to Russia in the late 1700’s.  Let us first set forth a little background information on the Mennonites as a religion.  The Mennonites grew out of a group known as the “Anabaptists” in the Protestant Reformation.  In Switzerland,

When the brethren rejected infant baptism, insisting instead on baptizing only those who freely chose to commit themselves to the discipline and fellowship of the body of believers, they affirmed in a new (and for that time very radical) way the separation of church and state. The first adult baptisms took place on 21 January 1525, when Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock in the home of Felix Mantz.

Opposition to the movement was intense and immediate. The brethren were mockingly called Anabaptists (meaning “rebaptizers”). The civil and religious authorities first sought to counter the vigorous and vociferous preaching of the Anabaptists with imprisonment and banishment. When these measures failed to quiet the radicals, the sentence of death was imposed. On 5 January 1527, Felix Mantz, an articulate, educated student of Hebrew, was drowned in the Limmat River in Zurich. Thousands of Anabaptists would suffer similar fates before the end of the century.¹

The name “Mennonite” came from the prominent Anabaptist preacher and leader, Menno Simons.  Simons founded churches in the Netherlands and Northwestern Germany.² For the purpose of this study it is important to note some of the bedrock beliefs of the Mennonites.  They were pacifists, refusing to bear arms, hold political office, swear oaths, including oaths of loyalty to a state, and to sue in courts of law.  When the Mennonite-Brethren Church later a adopted a creed in the late 1870’s statements for footwashing, and against military service and taking oaths were included therein.³ One outstanding theme of Mennonite history is migration.  They moved often, mostly to avoid persecution and to gain religious freedom.  These moves led them to various parts of Europe and North America.  Their move to Russia (the first group arriving in 1786) was motivated by a number of things, the desire for religious freedom, promises of free land and freedom from military service.  Some thought the anti-Christ would soon arise and decided to a await the “Parousia” of Christ in Russia.⁴

• Continue reading

In our last article we indicated that at certain times God’s commands are general in their nature. Such generic authority allows room to exercise discretion.

For example, in Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus gave his disciples instructions, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The command to “Go”, given by Jesus, is generic in nature. Jesus did not specify the means of going, so the disciples had discretion in fulfilling the command. These areas of discretion can be categorized as expediencies.

• Continue reading

Where do you draw the line?

That is the question that confronts many people as they think themselves wandering somewhere in between righteousness and iniquity. How much is too much? When do we go too far?

So many believe that the answers to those questions will always be a matter of personal conviction and that each person’s answer is as valid as the next. Yet in many cases, God has drawn lines for us and inching closer and closer to iniquity is like the moth flitting nearer to the flame. While it is imperative that we resist any urge to draw our own artificial, arbitrary lines and impose them on others, it is equally vital that we learn to respect the lines that God has drawn in his word.

When God Has Drawn A Line

In creation, God enacted certain lines, limits and boundaries for this planet on which we live, and in all the years since, it has not added an ocean or a continent (Proverbs 8:25-31).  In Proverbs 8, personified wisdom respects the authority of the Lord to set limits and draw boundaries, and when those limits are pressed, as they are in storms and floods and droughts, there is great conflict and injury that follows.

• Continue reading

The Lord promised the apostles that the Spirit would be with them and in them. That is, the Holy Spirit would give and guide them into all truth, and that he would attest to their divine direction by granting them the ability to perform miracles (John 14:17, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:13). The truth of the above facts is seen in what transpired. In other words, what subsequently happened defined and described what Jesus meant when he said the Spirit would testify and bear witness with them (Cf. "also," John 15:26, 27).

What followed these promises? What happened? "And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark 16:20; Cf. Hebrews 2:4). Both the apostles and the Holy Spirit were "witnesses" of the death of Christ and the glory that followed (Again, see "also" in Acts 5:32; Cf. John 15:27, where "also" includes both the apostles and the Spirit). When Peter later says they spoke the gospel "with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven," he was speaking of the fulfillment of these very things; namely, that the Spirit confirmed the testimony he gave the apostles by granting them the ability to work miracles (1 Peter 1:10-12). Or, as Scripture says, "And many wonders and signs were done by the apostles" (Acts 2:43). "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 4:33, which is in accord with the plea and prayer of 4:29, 30). God "gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (Acts 14:3). These passages are practical exhibitions or demonstrations of the declarations and promises of John 14:26; 15:26, 27; 16:13, 14. It is to such things that Paul alludes when he speaks of "the signs of an apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12).

• Continue reading

A Rejoinder to Marty Pickup

Editor’s Note: The following Rejoinder by Harry Osborne deals with a response by brother Marty Pickup to an article Osborne and Marc Gibson wrote entitled The Serpent That Was Not There, which appeared in the August 2003 issue of Watchman Magazine.  As per the editorial policy of the Magazine, the rejoinder of brother Osborne closes the exchange.

Before reading this rejoinder, the reader is asked to read and carefully consider the original article, The Serpent That Was Not There, and brother Marty Pickup’s response. The search for truth is assisted by careful and prayerful consideration of all teaching while searching the Scriptures daily to see if the things said are so (Acts 17:11). The pursuit of truth is the purpose of this discussion and I appreciate Marty’s willingness to discuss the issues involved in an open and honorable manner. If further discussion on these issues is desired, the pages of Watchman Magazine have been offered to publish such.

Brother Pickup began his response by saying, "I apparently expressed myself very poorly," further stating, "I greatly regret my choice of words seeing that those words have been read in such a wrong way." While I appreciate and share Marty’s recognition that hindsight could improve our phraseology, our brother clearly stated his views both in his lecture manuscript and in his response. In the original article, brother Gibson and I understood him clearly the first time, understood him stating the same view to each of us in separate correspondence, and understood his re-affirmation in his response. Since brother Pickup regrets the words used in his Florida College lecture manuscript, it is unfortunate that he chose many of the same words and some synonyms to express the same thoughts in his response. Actually, it was not the "choice of words" that was the problem, but rather the content of the words.

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: The following Response by Marty Pickup is to the article entitled The Serpent That Was Not There, which appeared in the August 2003 issue of Watchman Magazine.  The article was co-written by Harry Osborne and Marc Gibson.  Harry has penned a rejoinder to brother Pickup.  As per the editorial policy of the magazine, the response and rejoinder completes the exchange.

In a recent article for the 2003 Florida College Lectures, I discussed Genesis 3 and the curse that God pronounced on the serpent in the garden of Eden. I apparently expressed myself very poorly, however, because some readers have drawn the conclusion that I thought the Genesis account did not record historical fact or that Genesis 3 is a myth. Nothing could be further from the truth. I greatly regret my choice of words seeing that those words have been read in such a wrong way. So let me now be very clear: the Genesis account of Satan’s temptation of Eve is completely historical in every way. The being identified in the Bible as the serpent was really in the garden and he really tempted Eve. I never intended to suggest anything to the contrary.

• Continue reading